Background. Section 716(a) of the Act provides that, with respect to equipment manufactured after the effective date of applicable regulations established by the Commission and subject to those regulations, the accessibility obligations apply to a “manufacturer of equipment used for advanced communications services, including end user equipment, network equipment, and software . . . that such manufacturer offers for sale or otherwise distributes in interstate commerce.”108 In the Accessibility NPRM, the Commission sought comment on several issues and proposals relating to how it should interpret this provision.109
The Commission proposed to define “end user equipment” as including hardware;110 “software” as including the operating system,111 user interface layer,112 and applications,113 that are installed or embedded in the end user equipment by the manufacturer of the end user equipment or by the user; and “network equipment” as equipment used for network services.114 It also sought comment on whether upgrades to software by manufacturers are included in this definition.115
The Commission sought comment on the meaning of the phrase “used for advanced communications services” and asked whether equipment subject to Section 716(a) must merely support or be capable of offering advanced communications services on a stand-alone basis.116 Consistent with the Commission’s Section 255 rules, the Commission also proposed to define “manufacturer” as “an entity that makes or produces a product.”117
The Commission also sought comment on software upgrades, whether the limitations on liability in Section 2(a) of the CVAA generally preclude manufacturers of end user equipment from being liable for third-party applications that are installed or downloaded by the consumer,118 and whether manufacturers of software used for advanced communications services that is downloaded or installed by the user are covered by Section 716(a).119 Finally, the Commission sought comment on Section 718,120 which requires manufacturers and service providers to make Internet browsers built into mobile phones accessible to people who are blind or have visual impairments.121Specifically, the Commission sought input on steps the Commission and stakeholders could take to ensure that manufacturers and service providers could meet their obligations by 2013.122
Discussion. Section 716(a)(1) states the following:
a manufacturer of equipment used for advanced communications services, including end user equipment, network equipment, and software, shall ensure that the equipment and software that such manufacturer offers for sale or otherwise distributes in interstate commerce shall be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless the requirements of this subsection are not achievable.123
In the Accessibility NPRM the Commission proposed to find that developers of software that is used for advanced communications services and that is downloaded or installed by the user rather than by a manufacturer are covered by Section 716(a).124 The IT and Telecom RERCs support that proposal on the grounds that coverage should not turn on how a manufacturer distributes ACS software (pre-installed on a device or installed by the user).125 Microsoft and the VON Coalition, on the other hand, argue that Section 716(a) must be read as applying only to manufacturers of equipment, that “software” is not “equipment,” and that our proposal would impermissibly extend the Commission’s authority beyond the limits set by Congress in the CVAA.126
We find that, while the language of Section 716(a)(1) is ambiguous, the better interpretation of Section 716(a)(1) is that it does not impose independent regulatory obligations on providers of software that the end user acquires separately from equipment used for advanced communications services.
Section 716(a)(1) can be read in at least two ways. Under one reading, the italicized phrase “including end user equipment, network equipment, and software” defines the full range of equipment manufacturers covered by the Act. Under this construction, manufacturers of end user equipment used for ACS, manufacturers of network equipment used for ACS, and manufacturers of software used for ACS, would all independently be subject to the accessibility obligations of Section 716(a)(1), and to the enforcement regime of Section 717. “Equipment,” as used in the phrase “a manufacturer of equipment used for advanced communications services” would thus refer both to physical machines or devices and to software that is acquired by the user separately from any machine or device, and software would be understood to be a type of equipment. This first reading is the interpretation on which we sought comment in the Accessibility NPRM.127
Under a second possible reading, the phrase “manufacturer of equipment” would be given its common meaning as referring to makers of physical machines or devices. If such equipment is used for advanced communications services, then the equipment manufacturer is responsible for making it accessible. Under this reading, the phrase “including end user equipment, network equipment, and software” makes clear that both end user equipment and network equipment, as well as the software included by the manufacturer in such equipment, must be consistent with the CVAA’s accessibility mandate.128 Thus, to the extent that equipment used for advanced communications services include software components -- for example, operating systems or e-mail clients -- the manufacturer of the equipment is responsible for making sure that both “the equipment and software that such manufacturer offers for sale or otherwise distributes in interstate commerce” is accessible.129
The text of the CVAA does not compel either of these inconsistent readings. The first, more expansive, reading accords more easily with the use of commas surrounding and within the phrase “, including end user equipment, network equipment, and software,” but it requires giving the term “equipment” a meaning that is far broader than its ordinary usage. In addition, if “equipment” means “software” as well as hardware, then there was no need for Congress to say in the same sentence that “the equipment and software” that a manufacturer offers must be made accessible. The second, narrower, reading gives a more natural meaning to the word “equipment” and explains why it was necessary for Congress to say that the manufacturer of equipment used for ACS must make both “equipment and software” accessible. The second reading is thus more consistent with the interpretive canon that all words in a statute should if possible be given meaning and not deemed to be surplusage (as “software” would be in this phrase under the first reading).130
Looking to other provisions of the CVAA, the language of Section 716(j) is more consistent with the second, narrower understanding of Section 716(a)(1). Section 716(j) establishes a rule of construction to govern our implementation of the Act, stating that Section 716 shall not be construed to require a manufacturer of equipment used for ACS or a provider of ACS “to make every feature and function of every device or service accessible for every disability.”131 The word “device” refers to a physical object and cannot reasonably be construed to also refer to separately-acquired software. If, as in the broader interpretation of Section 716(a)(1), “manufacturer of equipment” includes manufacturers of separately acquired software, then Congress created a rule of construction for Section 716 as a whole that applies to only some of the equipment that is subject to Section 716(a). The narrower interpretation of Section 716(a)(1) produces a more logical result, in that Section 716(j), as it applies to manufacturers of equipment, has the same scope as Section 716(a).
Examining the legislative history of the CVAA, we find no indication in either the Senate Report or the House Report that Congress intended to instruct the Commission to regulate directly software developers that are neither manufacturers of equipment nor providers of advanced communications services -- a class of businesses that the Commission historically has not regulated. There is, on the other hand, evidence that Congress had makers of physical objects in mind when it made “manufacturers of equipment” responsible for accessibility. For example, the Senate Report states that the Act requires manufacturers of equipment used for ACS and providers of ACS to “make any such equipment, which they design, develop, and fabricate, accessible to individuals with disabilities, if doing so is achievable.”132 The Senate Report further says that Sections 716(a) and 716(b) “require that manufacturers and service providers, respectively, make their devices and services accessible to people with disabilities.”133 Likewise, the House Report states that Sections 716(a) and 716(b) “give manufacturers and service providers a choice regarding how accessibility will be incorporated into a device or service.”134 Software is not fabricated, nor are software programs or applications referred to as devices.135 Particularly in light of this legislative history, we are doubtful that Congress would have significantly expanded the Commission’s traditional jurisdiction to reach software developers, without any clear statement of such intent.
We disagree with commenters that suggest that the Commission’s interpretation of “customer premises equipment” (“CPE”) in the Section 255 Report and Order compels us to find that software developers that are neither manufacturers of ACS equipment nor providers of ACS are covered under Section 716(a).136 First, in the Section 255 Report and Order, the Commission found that CPE “includes software integral to the operation of the telecommunications function of the equipment, whether sold separately or not.”137 Although the statutory definition of CPE did not reference software, the Commission found that it should construe CPE similarly to how it construed “telecommunications equipment” in the Act, which Congress explicitly defined to include “software integral to such equipment (including upgrades).”138 The Commission did not in the Section 255 Report and Order reach the issue of whether any entity that was not a manufacturer of the end user equipment or provider of telecommunications services had separate responsibilities under the Act.139
Second, in the CVAA, Congress gave no indication that it intended the Commission to incorporate, when defining the scope of “equipment and software” for purposes of Section 716(a)(1), the definitions we have established for the different, but analogous, terms (“telecommunications equipment” and “customer premises equipment”) used in Section 255. Here, we interpret the statutory language to include all software, including upgrades, that is used for ACS and that is a component of the end user equipment, network equipment, or of the ACS service – and do not limit software to meaning only software that is integral to the network equipment or end user equipment. As we discuss further in paragraph 86, infra, if software gives the consumer the ability to engage in advanced communications, the provider of that software is a covered entity, regardless of whether the software is downloaded to the consumer’s equipment or accessed in the cloud.
The purpose of Sections 716 through 718 of the CVAA – to ensure access to advanced communications services for people with disabilities – is fully served by the narrower interpretation of Section 716(a) that we describe above because that interpretation focuses our regulatory efforts where they will be the most productive.
Advanced communications services are delivered within a complex and evolving ecosystem.140 Communications devices are often general-purpose computers or devices incorporating aspects of general-purpose computers, such as smartphones, tablets, and entertainment devices.141 In the Accessibility NPRM we observed that such systems are commonly described as having five components or layers: (1) hardware (commonly referred to as the “device”);142 (2) operating system;143 (3) user interface layer;144 (4) application;145 and (5) network services.146 We agree with ITI that three additional components in the architecture play a role in ensuring the accessibility of ACS: (1) assistive technology (“AT”) utilized by the end user; (2) the accessibility application programming interface (“API”);147 and (3) the web browser.148
For individuals with disabilities to use an advanced communications service, all of these components may have to support accessibility features and capabilities.149 It is clear, however, that Congress did not give us the task of directly regulating the manufacturers, developers, and providers all of these components. Rather, Congress chose to focus our regulatory and enforcement efforts on the equipment manufacturers and the ACS providers.
We believe that end user equipment manufacturers, in collaboration with the developers of the software components of the equipment and related service providers, are best equipped to be ultimately responsible for ensuring that all of the components that the end user equipment manufacturer provides are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.150 The manufacturer is the one that purchases those components and is therefore in a position to require that each of those components supports accessibility.151 Similarly, as we discuss further below,152the provider of an advanced communications service is the entity in the best position to make sure that the components (hardware, software on end user devices, components that reside on the web) it provides and that make up its service all support accessibility.
We believe these conclusions will foster industry collaboration between manufacturers of end user equipment, software manufacturers, and service providers and agree with TWC that this collaboration must be a central tenet in the efforts to implement the CVAA.153 For example, as Microsoft states, “a laptop manufacturer that builds ACS into its device will need to consult with the developer of the operating system to develop this functionality, and in that way the operating system provider will be deeply involved in solving these problems and promoting innovations in accessibility, such as making an accessibility API available to the manufacturer.”154 The consumer, who is not a party to any arrangements or agreements, contractual or otherwise, between an end user equipment manufacturer and a software developer, will not be put in the position of having to divine which entity is ultimately responsible for the accessibility of end user equipment used for advanced communications services.
We recognize that consumers are able to change many of the software components of the equipment they use for advanced communications services, including, for some kinds of equipment, the operating systems, e-mail clients, and other installed software used for ACS. We believe that, as a practical matter, operating systems and other software that are incorporated by manufacturers into their equipment will also be accessible when made separately available because it will not be efficient or economical for developers of software used to provide ACS to make accessible versions of their products for equipment manufacturers that pre-install the software and non-accessible freestanding versions of the same products. Therefore, we believe that we do not need to adopt an expansive interpretation of the scope of Section 716(a) to ensure that consumers receive the benefits intended by Congress.
Section 717(b)(1) of the Act requires us to report to Congress every two years, beginning in 2012. We are required, among other things, to report on the extent to which accessibility barriers still exist with respect to new communications technologies. We intend to pay particular attention in these reports to the question of whether entities that are not directly subject to our regulations, including software developers, are causing such barriers to persist.
Finally, the narrower interpretation of the scope of Section 716(a) that we adopt today makes this statutory program more cost-effective than would the more expansive interpretation. Covered entities are subject not only to the substantive requirement that they make their products accessible, if achievable, but also to an enforcement mechanism that includes recordkeeping and certification requirements. This type of enforcement program imposes costs on both industry and the government. Congress made a determination, which we endorse and enforce, that these costs are well justified to realize the accessibility benefits that the CVAA will bring about. But the costs of extending design, recordkeeping, and certification requirements to software developers would be justified only if they were outweighed by substantial additional accessibility benefits.
As explained above, it appears that the benefits of accessibility, as envisioned by Congress and supporters of the CVAA, can be largely (and perhaps entirely) realized under the narrower, less costly interpretation of Section 716(a)(1). Furthermore, the biennial review requirement of Section 717(b)(1) ensures that, if our prediction proves incorrect, the Commission will have an occasion to examine whether application of the CVAA’s requirements directly to developers of consumer-installed software is warranted, and make any necessary adjustments to our rules to achieve accessibility in accordance with the intent of the CVAA. This biennial review process gives us additional confidence that applying the statute more narrowly and cautiously in our initial rules is the most appropriate policy at this time.
With respect to the definition of “manufacturer,” consistent with the Commission’s approach in the Section 255 Report and Order and in the Accessibility NPRM, we define “manufacturer” as “an entity that makes or produces a product.”155 As the Commission noted in the Section 255 Report and Order, “[t]his definition puts responsibility on those who have direct control over the products produced, and provides a ready point of contact for consumers and the Commission in getting answers to accessibility questions and resolving complaints.”156 We believe this definition encompasses entities that are “extensively involved in the manufacturing process – for example, by providing product specifications.”157 We also believe this definition includes entities that contract with other entities to make or produce a product; a manufacturer need not own a production facility or handle raw materials to be a manufacturer.158
TechAmerica argues that Section 716(a) should apply only to equipment with a “primary purpose” of offering ACS.159 We reject this interpretation. As discussed above,160 consumers commonly access advanced communications services through general purpose devices. The CVAA covers equipment “used for ACS,”161 and we interpret this to include general purpose hardware with included software that provides users with access to advanced communications services.
Commenters also expressed concerns about the impact of software upgrades on accessibility. The IT and Telecom RERCs state that “[u]pgrades can be used to increase accessibility . . . or they can take accessibility away, as has, unfortunately occurred on numerous occasions.”162 Wireless RERC urges that “[e]nd-users who buy an accessible device expect manufacturer-provided updates and upgrades to continue to be accessible.”163 We agree that the purposes of the CVAA would be undermined if it permitted equipment or services that are originally required to be accessible to become inaccessible due to software upgrades. In accordance with our interpretation of 716(a)(1) above, just as a manufacturer of a device is responsible for the accessibility of included software, that manufacturer is also responsible for ensuring that the software developer maintains accessibility if and when it provides upgrades. However, we agree with CTIA that a manufacturer cannot be responsible for software upgrades “that it does not control and that it has no knowledge the user may select and download.”164
Indeed, we recognize more generally, as ITI urges, that manufacturers of equipment are not responsible for the components over which they have no control.165 Thus, manufacturers are not responsible for software that is independently selected and installed by users, or for software that users choose to access in the cloud.166 Furthermore, we generally agree with commenters that a manufacturer is not responsible for optional software offered as a convenience to subscribers at the time of purchase and that carriers are not liable for third-party applications that customers download onto mobile devices – even if software is available on a carrier’s website or application store.167
A manufacturer, however, has a responsibility to consider how the components in the architecture work together when it is making a determination about what accessibility is achievable for its product. If, for example, a manufacturer decides to rely on a third-party software accessibility solution, even though a built-in solution is achievable, it cannot later claim that it is not responsible for the accessibility of the third-party solution.168 A manufacturer of end-user equipment is also responsible for the accessibility of software offered to subscribers if the manufacturer requires or incentivizes a purchaser to use a particular third-party application to access all the features of or obtain all the benefits of a device or service, or markets its device in conjunction with a third-party add-on.169
Because we did not receive a full record on the unique challenges associated with implementing Section 718, we will solicit further input in the accompanying Further Notice on how we should proceed. In particular, we seek comment on the unique technical challenges associated with developing non-visual accessibility solutions for web browsers in a mobile phone and the steps that we can take to ensure that covered entities will be able to comply with these requirements on October 8, 2013, the date on which Section 718 becomes effective. Section 718 requires a mobile phone manufacturer that includes a browser, or a mobile phone service provider that arranges for a browser to be included on a mobile phone, to ensure that the browser functions are accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or have a visual impairment, unless doing so is not achievable. In the accompanying Further Notice, we also seek to develop a record on whether Internet browsers should be considered software generally subject to the requirements of Section 716. Specifically, we seek to clarify the relationship between Sections 716 and 718 and solicit comment on the appropriate regulatory approach for Internet browsers that are not built into mobile phones.
3.Providers of Advanced Communications Services
Background. Section 716(b)(1) of the Act provides that, with respect to service providers, after the effective date of applicable regulations established by the Commission and subject to those regulations, a “provider of advanced communications services shall ensure that such services offered by such provider in or affecting interstate commerce are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,” unless these requirements are “not achievable.”170
In the Accessibility NPRM,171 and consistent with the Section 255 Report and Order,172 the Commission proposed to find that providers of advanced communications services include all entities that make advanced communications services available in or affecting interstate commerce, including resellers and aggregators. The Commission also proposed to find that “providers of advanced communications services” include entities that provide advanced communications services over their own networks as well as providers of applications or services accessed (i.e., downloaded and run) by users over other service providers’ networks, as long as these advanced communications services are made available in or affecting interstate commerce.173
The Commission also asked whether there are any circumstances in which a service provider would be responsible for the accessibility of third-party services and applications or whether Section 2(a) of the CVAA would generally preclude such a result.174 Finally, the Commission sought comment on the meaning of offered “in or affecting interstate commerce” and whether there are any circumstances in which advanced communications services that are downloaded or run by the user would not meet this definition.175
Discussion. Consistent with the proposal in the Accessibility NPRM, we agree with commenters that state that we should interpret the term “providers” broadly and include all entities that make available advanced communications in whatever manner.176 Such providers include, for example, those that make web-based e-mail services available to consumers; those that provide non-interconnected VoIP services through applications that consumers download to their devices; and those that provide texting services over a cellular network.
As is the case with manufacturers, providers of ACS are responsible for ensuring the accessibility of the underlying components of the service, to the extent that doing so is achievable. For example, a provider of a web-based e-mail service could meet its obligations by ensuring its services are coded to web accessibility standards (such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)177), if achievable. For services downloaded onto the OS of a desktop or mobile device, service providers could meet their obligations by ensuring, if achievable, that their services are coded so they can work with the Accessibility API for the OS of the device.178 Those that provide texting services over a cellular network, for example, must ensure that there is nothing in the network that would thwart the accessibility of the service, if achievable.
COAT raises the concern that some software used for ACS may be neither a component of the end user equipment nor a component of a service and thus would not be covered under the statute.179 Specifically, COAT argues that H.323180 video and audio communication is peer-to-peer and does not require a service provider at all.181 Similarly, it argues that it is possible to have large-scale examples of peer-to-peer systems without service providers and that models used in the non-ACS context could be expanded to be used for ACS.182 We believe that COAT construes the meaning of “provider of advanced communications services” too narrowly. If software gives the consumer the ability to send and receive e-mail, send and receive text messages, make non-interconnected VoIP calls, or otherwise engage in advanced communications, then provision of that software is provision of ACS.183 The provider of that software would be a covered entity, and the service, including any provided through a small-scale or large-scale peer-to-peer system, would be subject to the requirements of the statute.184 This is true regardless of whether the software is downloaded to the consumer’s equipment or accessed in the cloud.
We disagree with Verizon’s assertion that the requirement in Section 716(e)(1)(C) that the Commission shall “determine the obligations under this section of manufacturers, service providers, and providers of applications or services accessed over service provider networks”185 compels the conclusion that developers of applications have their own independent accessibility obligations.186We note that the regulations that the Commission must promulgate pursuant to Section 716(e) relate to the substantive requirements of the Act found in Sections 716(a)-(d) encompassing accessibility (716(a) and 716(b)); compatibility (716(c)); and network features, functions, and capabilities (716(d)). Each of these obligations applies to manufacturers of ACS equipment and/or providers of ACS. There are no independent substantive requirements in these sections that apply to “providers of applications or services accessed over service provider networks.” We believe the most logical interpretation of this phrase is the one proposed in the NPRM: that providers of advanced communications services include entities that provide advanced communications services over their own networks as well as providers of applications or services accessed (i.e., downloaded and run) by users over other service providers’ networks.187 We adopt this interpretation today, which we believe comports with our analysis above that providers of ACS are responsible for ensuring the accessibility of the underlying components of the service, including the software applications, to the extent that doing so is achievable.
We find, however, that a provider of advanced communications services is not responsible for the accessibility of third-party applications and services that are not components of its service and that the limitations on liability in Section 2(a) of the CVAA generally preclude such service provider liability.188 This approach is consistent with commenters that argue that service providers and manufacturers should be responsible only for those services and applications that they provide to consumers.189 They explain that they have no control over third party applications that consumers add on their own and that such third party applications have the potential to significantly alter the functionality of devices.190 Notwithstanding that conclusion and consistent with Section 2(b) of the CVAA, we also agree with commenters that the limitation on liability under Section 2(a) does not apply in situations where a provider of advanced communications services relies on a third-party application or service to comply with the accessibility requirements of Section 716.191
We also confirm that providers of advanced communications services may include resellers and aggregators,192 which is consistent with the approach the Commission adopted in the Section 255 Report and Order.193 Several commenters support that conclusion.194 We disagree with Verizon’s suggestion that, to the extent that a carrier is strictly reselling an advanced communications service as is (without alteration), the sole control of the features and functions rests with the underlying service provider, not the reseller, and the reseller should not have independent compliance obligations.195 To the extent that the underlying service provider makes those services accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities in accordance with the CVAA mandates, those services should remain accessible and usable when resold as is (without alteration). Resellers offer services to consumers who may or may not be aware of the identity of the underlying service provider. It is both logical and in keeping with the purposes of the CVAA for consumers to be able to complain against the provider from whom they obtain a service, should that service be inaccessible. While a reseller may not control the features of the underlying service, it does have control over its decision to resell that service. Its obligation, like that of any other ACS provider, is to ensure that the services it provides are accessible, unless that is not achievable.
Because the networks used for advanced communications services are interstate in nature, and the utilization of equipment, applications and services on those networks are also interstate in nature, we conclude that the phrase “in or affecting interstate commerce” should be interpreted broadly.196 Nonetheless, the IT and Telecom RERCs suggest that an entity that has its own network “completely off the grid, that it creates and maintains, and that does not at any time connect to another grid” would not be covered.197 We agree that advanced communication services that are available only on a private communications network that is not connected to the Internet, the public switched telephone network (“PSTN”), or any other communications network generally available to the public may not be covered when such services are not “offered in or affecting interstate commerce.” An example of a private communications network is a company internal communications network. Nonetheless, where such providers of advanced communications services are not covered by Section 716, they may have accessibility obligations under other disability related statutes, such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973198 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.199
Section 716(e)(1)(C) of the Act requires the Commission to “determine the obligations…of manufacturers, service providers, and providers of applications or services accessed over service provider networks.”200 Below, we discuss the obligations of manufacturers and service providers, including the obligations of providers of applications or services accessed over service provider networks.
a.Manufacturers and Service Providers
Background. With respect to equipment manufacturers and service providers of ACS, the Commission proposed in the Accessibility NPRM to adopt general obligations that mirror the language of the statute, similar to the approach taken in sections 6.5 and 7.5 of the Commission’s Section 255 rules.201 The Commission also proposed to adopt requirements similar to those in its Section 255 rules regarding product design, development, and evaluation (sections 6.7 and 7.7); information pass through (sections 6.9 and 7.9); and information, documentation and training (sections 6.11 and 7.11), modified to reflect the statutory requirements of Section 716.202
Discussion. As set forth below, we adopt into our rules the general obligations contained in Sections 716(a)-(e).203 As the Commission did in the Section 255 Report and Order, we findthat a functional approach will provide clear guidance to covered entities regarding what they must do to ensure accessibility and usability.204 Consistent with AFB’s comments, we modify our rules as proposed to make clear that any third party accessibility solution that a covered entity uses to meet its accessibility obligations must be “available to the consumer at nominal cost and that individuals with disabilities can access.”205
With respect to equipment manufactured after the effective date of the regulations, a manufacturer of equipment used for advanced communications services, including end user equipment, network equipment, and software, must ensure that the equipment and software that such manufacturer offers for sale or otherwise distributes in interstate commerce shall be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless such requirements are not achievable.206
With respect to services provided after the effective date of the regulations, a provider of advanced communications services must ensure that services offered by such provider in or affecting interstate commerce are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless such requirements are not achievable.207
If accessibility is not achievable either by building it into a device or service or by using third-party accessibility solutions available to the consumer at nominal cost and that individuals with disabilities can access, then a manufacturer or service provider shall ensure that its equipment or service is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, unless such compatibility is not achievable.208
Providers of advanced communications services shall not install network features, functions, or capabilities that impede accessibility or usability.209
Advanced communications services and the equipment and networks used to provide such services may not impair or impede the accessibility of information content when accessibility has been incorporated into that content for transmission through such services, equipment, or networks.210
We further adopt in our rules the following key requirements, supported by the IT and Telecom RERCs,211 with some non-substantive modifications to clarify the rules proposed in the Accessibility NPRM.212 These requirements are similar to sections 6.7 – 6.11 of our Section 255 rules213 but are modified to reflect the statutory requirements of Section 716:
Manufacturers and service providers must consider performance objectives at the design stage as early and as consistently as possible and must implement such evaluation to the extent that it is achievable.
Manufacturers and service providers must identify barriers to accessibility and usability as part of such evaluation.214
Equipment used for advanced communications services must pass through cross-manufacturer, nonproprietary, industry-standard codes, translation protocols, formats, or other information necessary to provide advanced communications services in an accessible format, if achievable. Signal compression technologies shall not remove information needed for access or shall restore it upon decompression.
Manufacturers and service providers must ensure access by individuals with disabilities to information and documentation it provides to its customers, if achievable. Such information and documentation includes user guides, bills, installation guides for end user devices, and product support communications, in alternate formats, as needed. The requirement to provide access to information also includes ensuring that individuals with disabilities can access, at no extra cost, call centers and customer support regarding both the product generally and the accessibility features of the product.215
b.Providers of Applications or Services Accessed over Service Provider Networks
Background. Section 716(e)(1)(C) requires the Commission to “determine the obligations under . . . section  of manufacturers, service providers, and providers of applications or services accessed over service provider networks.”216 In the Accessibility NPRM, the Commission sought comment on what, if any, obligations it should impose on providers of applications or services accessed over service provider networks.217 The Commission also sought comment on the meaning of the phrase “accessed over service provider networks” and how it applies to applications and services that are downloaded and then run as either native or web applications on the device or to those applications and services accessed through cloud computing.218
Discussion. As noted previously, to the extent they provide advanced communications services, “providers of applications or services accessed over service provider networks” are “providers of advanced communications services” and have the same obligations when those services are accessed over the service provider’s own network or over the network of another service provider.219 No party suggested that any additional obligations apply to this subset of providers of ACS, and we do not adopt any today.220
Background. According to Section 716(d) of the Act, “[e]ach provider of advanced communications services has the duty not to install network features, functions, or capabilities that impede accessibility or usability.”221 In the Accessibility NPRM, the Commission proposed incorporating Section 716(d)’s requirements into the Commission’s rules, as the Commission’s Section 255 rules reflect the cognate language in Section 251(a)(2).222 Both the Senate and House Reports state that the obligations imposed by Section 716(d) “apply where the accessibility or usability of advanced communications services were incorporated in accordance with recognized industry standards.”223 In the Accessibility NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether it should “refrain from enforcing these obligations on network providers” until the Commission identifies and requires the use of industry-recognized standards.224
Discussion. As proposed in the Accessibility NPRM, we adopt rules that include the requirements set forth in Section 716(d), just as our Section 255 rules reflect the language in Section 251(a)(2). Commenters generally agree that the duty not to impede accessibility is comparable to the duty set forth in Section 251(a)(2) of the Act.225
As stated above, this obligation applies when the accessibility or usability of ACS is incorporated in accordance with recognized industry standards.226 We agree with industry and consumer commenters that suggest that stakeholder working groups should be involved in developing new accessibility standards.227 As explained in the next section, we believe that there are several potential mechanisms to develop these standards.228 Accordingly, we recommend that stakeholders either use existing working groups or establish new ones to develop standards that will ensure accessibility as the industry applies network management practices, takes digital rights management measures, and engages in other passive or active activities that may impede accessibility.229 We do not agree, however, that we should wait to require compliance with our rules governing network features until an industry working group “formulates and offers such standards for the industry.”230 We agree with ACB that “existing standards and expertise will ensure that manufacturers have sufficient functional approaches” on which to base accessibility and that “[f]urther experience and products will improve this process.”231 We believe this approach provides certainty through the use of recognized industry standards while at the same time recognizing the importance of not unnecessarily delaying the development of accessibility solutions.
d. Accessibility of Information Content
Background. Section 716(e)(1)(B) of the Act states that the Commission’s regulations shall “provide that advanced communications services, the equipment used for advanced communications services, and networks used to provide [such services] may not impair or impede the accessibility of information content when accessibility has been incorporated into that content for transmission through [such services, equipment or networks].”232 The legislative history of the CVAA makes clear that these requirements apply “where the accessibility of such content has been incorporated in accordance with recognized industry standards.”233 In the October Public Notice, the Bureaus sought comment on how Section 716(e)(1)(B) of the Act should be implemented and the types and nature of information content that should be addressed.234 Several commenters stressed the importance of developing industry-recognized standards to ensure the delivery of information content.235 In the Accessibility NPRM, the Commission sought further comment on developing industry-recognized standards and how they should be reflected in the Commission's rules, subject to the limitation on mandating technical standards in Section 716(e)(1)(D).236 In particular, the Commission sought comment on the RERC-IT proposal that our regulations need to ensure that (i) “the accessibility information (e.g., captions or descriptions) are not stripped off when information is transitioned from one medium to another;”237 (ii) “parallel and associated media channels are not disconnected or blocked;”238 and (iii) “consumers . . . have the ability to combine text, video, and audio streaming from different origins.”239 The Commission also sought comment on the best way it could ensure that encryption and other security measures do not thwart accessibility,240 while at the same time ensuring that it promotes “network security, reliability, and survivability in broadband networks.”241
Discussion. As proposed in the AccessibilityNPRM, we adopt a rule providing that “advanced communications services and the equipment and networks used with these services may not impair or impede the accessibility of information content when accessibility has been incorporated into that content for transmission through such services, equipment or networks.”242 This rule incorporates the text of Section 716(e)(1)(B) and is also consistent with the Commission’s approach in the Section 255 Report and Order.243 We believe that this rule is broad enough to disapprove of accessibility information being “stripped off when information is transitioned from one medium to another” and thus find it unnecessary to add this specific language in the rule itself, as originally suggested by the IT and Telecom RERCs.244
The legislative history of the CVAA makes clear that the requirement not to impair or impede the accessibility of information content applies “where the accessibility of such content has been incorporated in accordance with recognized industry standards.”245 We agree with the IT and Telecom RERCs that sources of industry standards include: (1) international standards from an international standards body; (2) standards created by other commonly recognized standards groups that are widely used by industry; (3) de-facto standards created by one company, a group of companies, or industry consortia that are widely used in the industry.246 We believe that these examples illustrate the wide range of recognized industry standards available that can provide guidance to industry without being overly broad or requiring covered entities to engineer for proprietary networks. We therefore decline to adopt CEA’s proposal that “recognized industry standards are only those developed in consensus-based, industry-led, open processes that comply with American Standards Institute (“ANSI”) Essential Requirements.”247
At this time, we are unable to incorporate any aspects of the Access Board criteria or the WCAG into our rules relating to accessibility of information content. Because the Access Board’s process for developing guidelines is still not complete,248 we believe that it would be premature and inefficient to adopt them at this juncture. We acknowledge, however, that the IT and Telecom RERCs support the WCAG developed by the W3C and argue that “these web standards in the proposed Access Board revisions to 508 and 255 … should definitely be incorporated in the rules.”249 Because technology is changing so quickly, we encourage stakeholders to use existing or form new working groups to develop voluntary industry-wide standards, including on issues such as encryption and other security measures.250 We will monitor industry progress on these issues and evaluate the Access Board guidelines when they are finalized to determine whether any amendments to our rule might be appropriate.
Finally, we agree with CEA and the IT and Telecom RERCs that, consistent with the CVAA’s liability limitations, manufacturers and service providers are not liable for content or embedded accessibility content (such as captioning or video description) that they do not create or control.251
5.Phased in Implementation
Background. Section 716(e) of the CVAA requires the Commission, within one year of the date of enactment of the CVAA, to promulgate regulations implementing Section 716. The accessibility requirements of the CVAA apply to “equipment manufactured after the effective date of the [applicable] regulations” and to “services provided after the effective date of the [applicable] regulations.”252 The recordkeeping and annual certification requirements contained in Section 717 of the CVAAtake effect “one year after the effective date” of the regulations that implement Section 716.253
Discussion. The responsibilities of manufacturers and service providers begin on the effective date of this Report and Order and are both prospective and continuing.254 First, the regulations we set forth herein will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except for those rules related to recordkeeping and certification. Next, the rules governing recordkeeping and certification will become effective after Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approval, but, as discussed above,255 no earlier than one year after the effective date of our regulations implementing Section 716.
As several commenters recommend,256 we are phasing in the requirements created by the CVAA for covered entities. Beginning on the effective date of these regulations, we expect covered entities to take accessibility into consideration during the design or redesign process for new equipment and services. Covered entities’ recordkeeping obligations become effective one year from the effective date of the rules adopted herein. By October 8, 2013, covered entities must be in compliance with all of the rules adopted herein. We find that phasing in these obligations is appropriate due to the need for covered entities to implement accessibility features early in product development cycles,257 the complexity of these regulations,258 and our regulations’ effects on previously unregulated entities. As CEA and ITI have stated, we have utilized phase-in periods previously in similarly complex rulemakings.259 Below, we discuss details of the phase-in process.
Beginning on the effective date of these regulations, we expect covered entities to take accessibility into consideration as early as possible during the design or redesign process for new and existing equipment and services and to begin taking steps to “ensure that [equipment and services] shall be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless… not achievable [as determined by the four achievability factors.]”260 As part of this evaluation, manufacturers and service providers must identify barriers to accessibility and usability.261
Beginning one year after the effective date of these regulations, covered entities recordkeeping obligations will become effective.262 As we further explain below, we require covered entities to keep and maintain records in the ordinary course of business that demonstrate that the advanced communications products and services they sell or otherwise distribute are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities or demonstrate that it was not achievable for them to make their products or services accessible.263
Beginning on October 8, 2013, products or services offered in interstate commerce must be accessible, unless not achievable, as defined by our rules. Several commenters have called for at least a two-year phase-in period for these regulations.264 By October 8, 2013, we expect that manufacturers and service providers will be incorporating accessibility features deep within many of their most complex offerings, instead of patching together ad-hoc solutions shortly before enforcement begins.265 Some commenters are concerned that a long phase-in period will leave individuals with disabilities waiting for access to new technologies.266 Although AAPD is correct that many covered entities have been aware of the existence of this rulemaking,267 the specific rules were not in place until now. The Commission is also cognizant of the fact that our new implementing regulations will touch entities not traditionally regulated by this Commission. A phase-in date of October 8, 2013 will give all covered entities the time to incorporate their new obligations into their development processes.268 A two-year phase-in period is also consistent with the Commission’s approach in other complex rulemakings, as shown in the chart below:
Closed Captioning Requirements for Digital Television269
E911 Location Accuracy Requirements270
Wireless Hearing Aid Compatibility Implementation272
Also beginning October 8, 2013, the requirements we discuss elsewhere regarding peripheral device compatibility273 and pass-through of industry standard codes and protocols274 come into effect. The obligation not to impair or impede accessibility or the transmission of accessibility information content through the installation of network, features, functions, or capabilities as clarified above275 also begins October 8, 2013. We also expect covered entities to provide information and documentation about their products and services in accessible formats, as explained earlier, beginning October 8, 2013.276
In addition, on October 8, 2013, consumers may begin filing complaints. Prior to that date, the Commission will issue a public notice describing how consumers may file a request for dispute assistance with the CGB Disability Rights Office and informal complaints with the Enforcement Bureau.277 Formal complaints must be filed in accordance with the rules adopted in this Report and Order.278 While the CVAA complaint process will not be available to consumers until 2013, we remind industry that it has a current obligation to ensure that telecommunications services and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Consumers may file complaints at any time under our existing informal complaint procedures alleging violations of the accessibility requirements for telecommunications manufacturers and service providers under Section 255 of the Communications Act.279 Furthermore, separate from the complaint process, the Disability Rights Office in CGB will be available to assist consumers, manufacturers, service providers and others in resolving concerns about the accessibility and usability of advanced communications services and equipment as of the effective date of our rules (i.e., October 8, 2013).280
Since ACS manufacturers and service providers must take accessibility into account early in the ACS product development cycle beginning on the effective date of our rules, we anticipate that many ACS products and services with relatively short development cycles will reach the market with accessibility features well before October 8, 2013.